The New Patriotic Party (NPP) Caucus in the 8th Parliament continues to remain the Majority Group after the Supreme Court, last Friday, placed a stay of execution on a Thursday ruling by the Speaker of Parliament, Alban Bagbin which declared four Parliamentary seats vacant.
Per the ruling of Speaker Bagbin, the National Democratic Congress (NDC), a party he dutifully served for decades and contuses to support, would have become the Majority Group but the ruling has been frozen by the Supreme Court and cannot be implemented.
The drama was over the interpretation and understanding of Article 97 (1) g and h of the Constitution and Majority Leader Alexander Afenyo-Markin invoked the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to step in and solve the misunderstanding over the application of that Article of the Constitution.
READ ALSO: Bagbin warns gov’t of no military presence at voting centers during elections
“The Parliament of Ghana is hereby directed to recognise and allow the 4 affected Members of Parliament herein named to duly represent their constituents and conduct the full scope of the duties of their offices as Members of Parliament pending the determination of this suit.
“In view of the gravity of the issues raised in this instant suit and the urgency of this matter, this Court hereby directs that, pursuant to article 129(4) of the 1992 Constitution and Rule 5 of CI 16, the Defendants – Speaker of Parliament and the Attorney General are to file their statements of case within 7 days of service of this ruling”, were the orders given by the Supreme Court when Alexander Afenyo-Markin appeared before the learned Justices
Speaker Alban Bagbin’s controversial ruling based was on his interpretation of Article 97 of the Constitution after the Minority Caucus had drawn his attention to the fact that some three Parliamentarians who entered the 8th Parliament on the ticket of a political party, have filed nominations seeking to return to the 9th Parliament as independent Members. There was also the case of one independent Member who had filed nominations and intends to be in the next Parliament on the ticket of the NPP.
Afenyo-Markin in his writ had argued that the ruling of the Speaker of Parliament deprives the four Constituencies represented by these four (4) ousted Members of Parliament, their constitutional right of representation in Parliament because from the date of the said ruling up to the date of dissolution of the 8″ Parliament of the 4″ Republic in the mid night of 6″ January, 2025 is a period of less than three months.
He said by the express provision of Article 112(6) of the 1992 Constitution, a by-election shall not be held within 3 months before the holding of a general election therefore the ruling of the Speaker of Parliament smacks of a coup d’ tata against the four affected constituencies to deny them lawful representation in the national assembly.
That in the absence of any by-election between the date of the ruling of the Speaker of Parliament (ie 17% October, 2024) and the
dissolution of the 8th Parliament of the 4th Republic, Ghanaian citizens residing in these four constituencies do not have the right of reelecting anyone to replace these four ousted Members of Parliament.
READ ALSO: Afenyo-Markin Invokes Article 112(3) To Corner Speaker Bagbin
He said this makes the said ruling of the Speaker of Parliament an irreparable damage and excessively harsh if the said ruling is not stayed
Afenyo-Markin argued further that the ruling of the Speaker of Parliament if made to stand could plunge the country into mayhem and chaos as unnecessary Parliamentary enquiries likely to be raised by the new majority party in Parliament could bring government business to a halt and lead the country into civil disobedience, public demonstrations aimed at making the country ungovernable.
Afenyo-Markin stated that even before the Speaker pronounced the controversial ruling, he, in his capacity as Majority Leader had filed a motion on notice to get an injunction to restrain same Speaker but that was ignored completely before and during when the said controversial ruling was pronounced.
